In Depth

Even though Indiana courts strongly disfavor noncompete clauses in employment contracts as restraints of trade, the majority
of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against a Porter County man. They found
the company had a legitimately protectable interest in the man’s knowledge of its customers and market.

In Steven E. Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., et al., No. 64A03-1004-PL-232, Steven Coates, a former
employee of Heat Wagons Inc. and Manufacturers Products, appealed the preliminary injunction granted against him to prevent
him from operating a side business, Second Source, which was also involved in the sale of portable heater parts. Manufacturers
Products (MPI) had a portable heater parts division, Portable Heater Parts (PHP), that Coates was also involved in.

When Coates’ father died and the company was sold, the new owners retained Coates as an employee and he signed an employment
agreement, which contained a noncompete clause. Just before he was retained by the new owners, Coates changed the name of
Second Source to S&S and concealed his involvement with the company. S&S often sold parts to MPI.

After Coates was fired in 2009, the company discovered his involvement with S&S and filed the complaint to enjoin him
from continued operation of S&S. It later filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction. The trial court granted
the preliminary injunction against Coates.

Judges L. Mark Bailey and Patricia Riley upheld the injunction and affirmed the trial court in all respects except with regard
to the part of the injunction that prevented any use by Coates of heatersandparts.com and a red “H&P” mark
on its website and printed materials. PHP used a red “PHP” mark and its website is portableheaterparts.com. There
was no evidence that Coates’ use of the website or mark created any confusion among its current or potential customers,
wrote Judge Bailey. The judges also found the relief to be overly broad, because by restricting the use of the web address
and mark, the trial court effectively restricted Coats from using these means of advertising in the U.S. and globally.

The majority found the trial court didn’t err in determining MPI faced a risk of irreparable harm and lacked adequate
remedy at law as a result of any breach by Coates of the agreement not to compete. They also held the trial court didn’t
err by determining that MPI has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its case.

Judge James Kirsch dissented because he believed the covenant to not compete failed to be reasonable in terms of both activity
and geographic area. He found the purpose of the covenant at issue is solely to prevent competition by restricting Coates
from engaging in competition with the employer “in any capacity whatsoever” and prevent Coates from competing
in any way.

He also found the geographic scope of the restriction, which applied to all the states in which MPI had done business, was
without regard to whether Coates actually had any involvement in such states. Judge Kirsch also questioned the trial court’s
re-writing of the contract as a matter of policy. The trial court “blue penciled” the contract, including the
scope of the provisions of the covenant to strike out the 13 states which Coates had no contact, and made other changes.

“Here, as a result of re-writing the employer’s contract by the trial court, a contract that is unreasonable
in its scope and unenforceable as over-broad becomes enforceable against the employee,” he wrote. “I believe that
the restrictive covenant is unenforceable in its entirety.”

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.